Learning Disabilities
Is it true that certain cars' ECUs actually have to "learn" to adjust calibration of air/fuel ratios after basic bolt-on mods are installed to see maximum gains? I recently installed an intake, header and exhaust on my '00 Celica GT-S and a friend of mine told me that I wouldn't make any power from the install until I reset my ECU by unplugging it for 13 hours. Is this true, or is he F.O.S? He also told me that I would have to reset it every few days or so for the most power.
-Confused, via email
He's partially full of shit. You only need to disconnect the battery for a minute or so to reset the computer. If you want to be sure you drain the capacitors, you can probably step on the brake pedal while the battery is disconnected. In the world of OBD2 ECUs, the longterm fuel and ignition trims can affect an engine's performance. All modifications require tuning to optimize horsepower increases. Just get yourself an A'PEXi PowerFC and stop screwing around.
Use The Force
I'm building my Honda S2000 to be a combination street and road race car. Problem is, I want to increase downforce on the track at lower speeds without damaging it or negatively affecting its high-speed driveability on the street. Will adding a rear wing, front lip and canards help or hurt either of these goals?
-Rob Walker, Amarillo, Tex.
Ideal aerodynamic modifications do exactly that: Increase downforce without increasing drag. However, you'll need a wind tunnel to accurately design your aero package. Since you can't afford a wind tunnel session (nor can anybody touching this magazine for that matter), stick to an aero parts manufacturer who has either done wind tunnel testing or track testing. I know that C-West has done wind tunnel testing with their various S2000 kits and wings, and Voltex has done on-track testing with their canards and rear wings. If you have the time, a ton of money and are a badass consistent driver, you could conduct your own track testing by comparing lap times and switching parts or making adjustments. Since this isn't a reality, just get the C-West kit.
Smoke Signals
I know the "supercharger versus turbocharger" debate has been grinded to a fine powder, but I was hoping you could shed some light on a debate I had with an associate the other day. He argued something to the effect that an engine with a greater number of pistons-like 8 or 12-would be better suited for supercharging, than one with fewer pistons, because its pulley would receive maximum torque output at more points per revolution throughout its (and the engine's) rotation-or something like that. He said that in a four-stroke, four-cylinder engine, there are only two points of maximum torque output per revolution, but in an eight-cylinder engine there are twice as many; meaning that the supercharger could be turned (and produce power) more efficiently, and that's why four-and six-cylinder engines are more commonly turbocharged and engines with more pistons might be better supercharged. Is there any truth to this, or is he blowing smoke up my ass?
-Jay Adkins, Rawlings, Ala.
Not only is the dumb shit blowing smoke up your ass, he's an S.P.E: Self Proclaimed Engineer. This guy must be one of those idiots that think they're badass and argue some stupid little point to death on the forums, huh? It will take X amount of horsepower to turn a supercharger Y amount of rpm regardless of the number of cylinders in an engine, given the same supercharger is used on both engines. It is purely dependent on the supercharger's design and how much power is required to spin the supercharger.